Comment by logicalmonster
1 year ago
> how a particular group of employees are less likely to be as proficient at their work as I am due to some immutable biological trait(s) they possess
Is that what Damore actually said? That's not my recollection. I think his main point was that due to differences in biology, that women had more extraversion, openness, and neuroticism (big 5 traits) and that women were less likely to want to get into computer stuff. That's a very far cry from him saying something like "women suck at computers" and seems very dishonest to suggest.
- I think his main point was that due to differences in biology, that women had more extraversion, openness, and neuroticism (big 5 traits) and that women were less likely to want to get into computer stuff.
I'm generally anti-woke and it was more than that. It's not just 'less likely' it was also 'less suited'
It would be helpful if you can post such a citation. I did a quick search and I'm not seeing "less suited" in his memo.
"women have more interest people to things so to improve their situation we should increase pair-programming, however there are limits to how people oriented some SE roles are".
This is literally saying we should change SWE roles to make it more suited to women... i.e. women are not suited for that currently.
8 replies →
Which is still pretty ridiculous on the face of it. Software beyond school assignments and toys are always a collaborative effort where extroversion, openness, and neuroticism are benefits to getting stuff done
Based on his software opinions, I'd guess he was let go for performance issues more than anything. It's unlikely that he could write code that another person could agree with, work with, or read, and that if somebody asked about his code, he'd be unable to talk about it.
It's fair to say that general female population is less suited, i.e. a random woman is less likely to be suited than a random man.
We're talking about small fractions of both men and women, mind you.